Jay Classroom Teachers Association v. Jay School Corporation and Indiana Education Employment Relation Board
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 711
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jay Classroom Teachers Association and Jay School Corporation reached an impasse over the 2013–14 collective bargaining agreement; each party submitted a Last Best Offer (LBO) after mediation failed.
- A factfinder recommended adoption of the School’s LBO; the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board held a hearing and adopted the School’s LBO but struck a provision authorizing pay for teachers who volunteer or are assigned to cover a class during the regular school day.
- The Board left intact a separate provision allowing the Superintendent to place teachers hired after the school year began "on any line of the scale as determined by the Superintendent."
- The Association petitioned for judicial review; the trial court affirmed the Board, concluding the Board properly deleted the ancillary-pay provision (to avoid double payment) and permissibly left the Superintendent-placement provision.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether (1) teachers may be paid additional wages for covering classes during the regular workday as an "ancillary duty," and (2) whether the Superintendent-placement provision unlawfully conflicted with teachers' statutory right to bargain salaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether teachers can be paid additional wages for volunteering/covering a class during the normal workday (ancillary-pay provision) | Association: Provision is an allowable wage for an ancillary duty; both parties included identical language in their LBOs, so Board erred in striking it | School/Board: Paying for teaching during the regular day would be double payment; Nettle Creek permits pay only for duties outside the normal workday | Court: Rejected a bright-line rule; where both parties agree, covering a class can be a compensable ancillary duty during the normal workday; Board erred to strike it |
| Whether Superintendent may unilaterally set salaries for teachers hired after the school year begins | Association: Provision conflicts with statutory right of employees to collectively bargain to establish salaries, so it is impermissible | School/Board: Placement must follow the salary scale and 2011 statutory changes grant flexibility; Superintendent needs discretion for mid-year hires | Court: Provision unambiguously conflicts with statute and impermissibly transfers bargaining power to the Superintendent; it should have been stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana Educ. Employment Relations Bd. v. Nettle Creek Classroom Teachers Ass'n, 26 N.E.3d 47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (distinguishes salary vs. wages and holds teachers may negotiate additional wages for agreed or required ancillary duties)
- State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng'rs v. Eberenz, 723 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. 2000) (administrative review standards and limits)
- LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000) (agency statutory interpretation entitled to weight unless inconsistent with statute)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Vanderburgh Cnty.-City of Evansville Human Relations Comm'n, 875 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (courts review administrative record for substantial evidence and do not reweigh evidence)